7 ms·

Unlike many people here, I'm not ideologically opposed to the idea of a walled-garden phone (though my preference would be to have the ability to sideload). But

Unlike many people here, I'm not ideologically opposed to the idea of a walled-garden phone (though my preference would be to have the ability to sideload). But it kills me just how poorly Apple is behaving here. It's like they don't care at all about pissing off the developers that help make their platform attractive, and they'll belligerently go on not caring even as government agencies around the world gear up to take them to court, consequences be damned.

Humdeee 5y ago
Reigning in copycat developers is not a bad thing for the consumer base. Have an original idea and one with more effort than what could be summarized in a youtube tutorial and I don't see why they would reject. I don't want to discredit OP's 'hackathon' night of coding, but making a blog post because you paid the annual $100 and Apple rejects your mud that you threw at the wall hoping it would stick is why I like being an Apple user. If Apple cites copycat as a rejection, there's already likely 50 other apps just like it and the pattern of app is finally being rejected. There's still opportunity, but you need to be an 'early copycat' to make it so.
- dcow 5y ago
  I think the developer made a very clear case as to why they do not have a simple copycat experience. Please read the essay.
  - dkonofalski 5y ago
    The developer's post assumes that those other clones won't be removed. It also assumes that every review process is exactly the same. We only know one side of the story here and it's full of assumptions and conjecture.
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      That highlights another problem with the process- the complete lack of transparency. Apple could be more forthcoming about the review process, yet they aren’t.
      - dkonofalski 5y ago
        Do they need to be? They told the developer why it wasn't allowed - it violates the Copycat clause of the ToS. At that point, the developer is just attempting to make minimal changes to differentiate it enough to bypass that restriction and then resubmitting over and over. I don't think anyone is under the illusion that this isn't a Wordle copycat. Even the author knows it.
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        It doesn't allow the developer any actionable feedback. They could have included screenshots highlighting the exact ways this app is a copycat. What if the developer changed the UX differently- would it then no longer be a copycat? It also downplays the which the app isn't a copycat, namely that it uses a different language. As it stands, just calling something a copycat is not substantiative, you actually need to provide justification. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
        dkonofalski 5y ago
        What actionable feedback could there be? The author is copying Wordle. The very nature of the project is to copy a copyrighted application/website.
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        Is the inherent game mechanic being the same the problem, or could that be alleviated if the screens looked more distinct? And it is in a different language, after all. Are Wordle's mechanics even copyrighted?
        5y ago
    - jonatanheyman 5y ago
      As the writer of the post, I would love to hear Apple's side of the story. The reason I didn't include more quotes from Apple was that they never cited anything other than "resembles Wordle" and "leverages Wordle" in their replies. But clearly, given that they don't apply these rules when it comes to other apps (such as Scrabble, Minesweeper, Tetris, etc.), there is something else going on.
      - dkonofalski 5y ago
        With respect, you don't know that they aren't attempting to take action on those other apps. Wordle may be a recent copyright issue since NYT has purchased the original. It seems like their rules do apply to these other apps but they just haven't gotten the attention that Wordle has so there's less bias towards those.
        curt15 5y ago
        WHat does "attempting to take action on those other apps" mean? Apple still lists them on the app store for download.
        jonatanheyman 5y ago
        Thankfully (IMO), you can't patent game ideas. There's no legal action NYT can take (and expect to win) to shut down any games that build on the same game rules. However, even if you disagree with me, and think that there should be no app implementing Wordle-style gameplay on App Store. What's your opinion on Minesweeper, Tetris, or Tic-tac-toe? Should no iOS versions of those games exist? Remember that Apple only ever refers to the original Wordle website in their rejections and never even acknowledges the existence of Wordle clones. What about Scrabble? If they were applying their rules consistently they would surely kick out Words With Friends, but what about Wordfeud? Should they kick out Wordfeud because Scrabble implementations already existed on the web?
    - raydev 5y ago
      A healthy and well-founded assumption given their track record of mishandling copycats in other app categories that are far more scammy and actively steal people's money.
  - Humdeee 5y ago
    No, it's not a clear case. That's what the discussion is about. It's overemphasizing the differing features, and Apple seems to also think so. What you and OP think is evidently not what Apple and many other thinks. Please at least attempt to understand another perspective.
    - mrtranscendence 5y ago
      But there’s nothing illegal per se about duplicating the gameplay of Wordle. It should only be an issue when, say, assets are stolen, or if the developers use the similarity to Wordle to trick users into making in-app purchases.
      - s17n 5y ago
        Copying apps isn't illegal, but it's annoying and banning the practice seems like a good policy. I think the problem boils down to two things: 1. Apple doesn't actually have a "no copycat apps" policy, instead its an unwritten and inconsistently enforced rule 2. In this case, providing a Swedish version of the game is actually good for users and arguably should be encouraged
        Someone 5y ago
        > Apple doesn't actually have a "no copycat apps" policy https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#copycats https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#cop...: 4.1 Copycats Come up with your own ideas. We know you have them, so make yours come to life. Don’t simply copy the latest popular app on the App Store, or make some minor changes to another app’s name or UI and pass it off as your own. In addition to risking an intellectual property infringement claim, it makes the App Store harder to navigate and just isn’t fair to your fellow developers.
        s17n 5y ago
        I stand corrected. I guess the problem for this dev was that the reviewer cited copyright, which doesn't apply here, instead of referencing the appropriate rule
- mrtranscendence 5y ago
  I don’t mind the App Store removing shameless copies. But games with distinct features (eg offering Swedish) and which don’t use anyone else’s intellectual property should probably not face such an uphill battle. Further, they only pay such attention to Wordle clones because they were publicly called out on it. Other clones, even ones that violate IP laws, still get a free pass. And it’s not as if they’ve stopped allowing Wordle clones in, either.
  - Humdeee 5y ago
    I agree with this. I don't understand why some make it and some don't. I've said in a different comment that I believe if OP rolled the dice with a new app that didn't have copycat reject history, he has a decent chance to get it approved IMO.
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    I'm not sure there's an easy solution here. I don't like copycats for more than one reason, but I don't think it's clear what criteria Apple should apply to determine whether an app is sufficiently distinct. If we considered language differences as sufficiently distinct, would that also mean allowing companies that watch for any new interesting idea and replicate it in language X?
    - jonatanheyman 5y ago
      I'd argue that the language of the dictionary is far more critical for a word game than just the UI language of a random app.
    - sleepybrett 5y ago
      Outside of wordle and other VERY POPULAR apps (a very narrow scope) it's impossible to expect that apple has a way to tell if any given submission is a copycat of anything.
amelius 5y ago
> I'm not ideologically opposed to the idea of a walled-garden phone (though my preference would be to have the ability to sideload). The App-Store is, in this context, merely a Content Filter. So why not allow multiple content filters?
- sleepybrett 5y ago
  Because it creates customer confusion and anger when they hit the genius bar with a phone that is bricked because the customer used a non-apple appstore to install software that resulted in a bricked phone. It further causes apple support increased support costs when they have to prove that it wasn't their fault. Perhaps if apple had approval on those third-party appstores and held them to a standard and charged pushed those support charges onto them..
  - amelius 5y ago
    Apple should just provide proper sandboxing. If some alternative appstore manages to break the sandbox, then they have different problems. The problem is not that Apple can't make this happen. The problem is that they don't want it.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    Apple can just very publicly and visibly issue disclaimers that it is not responsible for the after effects of users installing non-App Store content. Just as it does not offer coverage for water damage to MacBooks. Then the boundaries are made clear, and user anger will be directed at whatever malicious third party instead of Apple itself.
    - FalconSensei 5y ago
      But how do you prevent the users from thinking the problem was the non-App Store content instead of an update? They ARE going to contact support anyway
      - Apocryphon 5y ago
jillesvangurp 5y ago
Apple deserves the inevitable government intervention that it seems to be begging for with its arbitrariness and blatant anti competitive behavior.
- pmarreck 5y ago
  > blatant anti competitive behavior apple acting self-interested (which it’s entirely justified in doing, IMHO; this is the same company that almost had a tragic death in the 90’s) just opens up more competition IMHO. it’s too bad that true open-source phones are still crap, that android gave too much power to the cell network providers and became bloatware vehicles, and that microsoft completely abandoned its phone efforts even though its OS on there had a promising GUI. Maybe what we’re seeing is more a symptom of that. Also blue texts, because Google can’t get its head out of its ass long enough to actually summon and stick with a real iMessage competitor
  - ChrisLTD 5y ago
    What does their near death experience of the 1990s have to do with today? Is anyone in leadership from that era even working there now?
    - pmarreck 5y ago
      Tim Cook's been at Apple since 1998. Apple's near-death was in 1997. Tim's overseen basically the entire rise from bottom to top. Craig Federighi joined in 1996, was there for the bottom of the barrel, left for a time but then returned. But yes, Jobs essentially died in the meantime of misinformation/baseless-beliefs, and Jony Ive has moved on (but he was there since 1992 up until recently). Phil Schiller's been at Apple since, wow, 1987, and Eddy Cue since 1989. So yeah, I'd say there's quite a few long-time Apple execs who have been there through the thick and the thin. More power to them. Know who else has stuck with them even longer than them? Me. Been an Apple guy since I was 12 in December 1984, when my otherwise-frugal fam got the Macintosh 128k. ;) In 1997 I was doing part-time work as a mainly-Mac computer consultant on the side (while serving in the USAF) and things were DIRE for any Apple believer. But anyway, bygone days. https://www.apple.com/leadership/ https://www.apple.com/leadership/
checker659 5y ago
> the developers that help make their platform attractive This is where you're wrong about Apple. To Apple, it's Apple that makes the platform attractive. Developers are a dime a dozen to them. Especially indie / small scale devs.

Humdeee 5y ago

Reigning in copycat developers is not a bad thing for the consumer base. Have an original idea and one with more effort than what could be summarized in a youtube tutorial and I don't see why they would reject. I don't want to discredit OP's 'hackathon' night of coding, but making a blog post because you paid the annual $100 and Apple rejects your mud that you threw at the wall hoping it would stick is why I like being an Apple user. If Apple cites copycat as a rejection, there's already likely 50 other apps just like it and the pattern of app is finally being rejected. There's still opportunity, but you need to be an 'early copycat' to make it so.

dcow 5y ago
I think the developer made a very clear case as to why they do not have a simple copycat experience. Please read the essay.
- dkonofalski 5y ago
  The developer's post assumes that those other clones won't be removed. It also assumes that every review process is exactly the same. We only know one side of the story here and it's full of assumptions and conjecture.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    That highlights another problem with the process- the complete lack of transparency. Apple could be more forthcoming about the review process, yet they aren’t.
    - dkonofalski 5y ago
      Do they need to be? They told the developer why it wasn't allowed - it violates the Copycat clause of the ToS. At that point, the developer is just attempting to make minimal changes to differentiate it enough to bypass that restriction and then resubmitting over and over. I don't think anyone is under the illusion that this isn't a Wordle copycat. Even the author knows it.
      - Apocryphon 5y ago
        It doesn't allow the developer any actionable feedback. They could have included screenshots highlighting the exact ways this app is a copycat. What if the developer changed the UX differently- would it then no longer be a copycat? It also downplays the which the app isn't a copycat, namely that it uses a different language. As it stands, just calling something a copycat is not substantiative, you actually need to provide justification. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
        dkonofalski 5y ago
        What actionable feedback could there be? The author is copying Wordle. The very nature of the project is to copy a copyrighted application/website.
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        Is the inherent game mechanic being the same the problem, or could that be alleviated if the screens looked more distinct? And it is in a different language, after all. Are Wordle's mechanics even copyrighted?
        5y ago
  - jonatanheyman 5y ago
    As the writer of the post, I would love to hear Apple's side of the story. The reason I didn't include more quotes from Apple was that they never cited anything other than "resembles Wordle" and "leverages Wordle" in their replies. But clearly, given that they don't apply these rules when it comes to other apps (such as Scrabble, Minesweeper, Tetris, etc.), there is something else going on.
    - dkonofalski 5y ago
      With respect, you don't know that they aren't attempting to take action on those other apps. Wordle may be a recent copyright issue since NYT has purchased the original. It seems like their rules do apply to these other apps but they just haven't gotten the attention that Wordle has so there's less bias towards those.
      - curt15 5y ago
        WHat does "attempting to take action on those other apps" mean? Apple still lists them on the app store for download.
      - jonatanheyman 5y ago
        Thankfully (IMO), you can't patent game ideas. There's no legal action NYT can take (and expect to win) to shut down any games that build on the same game rules. However, even if you disagree with me, and think that there should be no app implementing Wordle-style gameplay on App Store. What's your opinion on Minesweeper, Tetris, or Tic-tac-toe? Should no iOS versions of those games exist? Remember that Apple only ever refers to the original Wordle website in their rejections and never even acknowledges the existence of Wordle clones. What about Scrabble? If they were applying their rules consistently they would surely kick out Words With Friends, but what about Wordfeud? Should they kick out Wordfeud because Scrabble implementations already existed on the web?
  - raydev 5y ago
    A healthy and well-founded assumption given their track record of mishandling copycats in other app categories that are far more scammy and actively steal people's money.
- Humdeee 5y ago
  No, it's not a clear case. That's what the discussion is about. It's overemphasizing the differing features, and Apple seems to also think so. What you and OP think is evidently not what Apple and many other thinks. Please at least attempt to understand another perspective.
  - mrtranscendence 5y ago
    But there’s nothing illegal per se about duplicating the gameplay of Wordle. It should only be an issue when, say, assets are stolen, or if the developers use the similarity to Wordle to trick users into making in-app purchases.
    - s17n 5y ago
      Copying apps isn't illegal, but it's annoying and banning the practice seems like a good policy. I think the problem boils down to two things: 1. Apple doesn't actually have a "no copycat apps" policy, instead its an unwritten and inconsistently enforced rule 2. In this case, providing a Swedish version of the game is actually good for users and arguably should be encouraged
      - Someone 5y ago
        > Apple doesn't actually have a "no copycat apps" policy https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#copycats https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#cop...: 4.1 Copycats Come up with your own ideas. We know you have them, so make yours come to life. Don’t simply copy the latest popular app on the App Store, or make some minor changes to another app’s name or UI and pass it off as your own. In addition to risking an intellectual property infringement claim, it makes the App Store harder to navigate and just isn’t fair to your fellow developers.
        s17n 5y ago
        I stand corrected. I guess the problem for this dev was that the reviewer cited copyright, which doesn't apply here, instead of referencing the appropriate rule
mrtranscendence 5y ago
I don’t mind the App Store removing shameless copies. But games with distinct features (eg offering Swedish) and which don’t use anyone else’s intellectual property should probably not face such an uphill battle. Further, they only pay such attention to Wordle clones because they were publicly called out on it. Other clones, even ones that violate IP laws, still get a free pass. And it’s not as if they’ve stopped allowing Wordle clones in, either.
- Humdeee 5y ago
  I agree with this. I don't understand why some make it and some don't. I've said in a different comment that I believe if OP rolled the dice with a new app that didn't have copycat reject history, he has a decent chance to get it approved IMO.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  I'm not sure there's an easy solution here. I don't like copycats for more than one reason, but I don't think it's clear what criteria Apple should apply to determine whether an app is sufficiently distinct. If we considered language differences as sufficiently distinct, would that also mean allowing companies that watch for any new interesting idea and replicate it in language X?
  - jonatanheyman 5y ago
    I'd argue that the language of the dictionary is far more critical for a word game than just the UI language of a random app.
  - sleepybrett 5y ago
    Outside of wordle and other VERY POPULAR apps (a very narrow scope) it's impossible to expect that apple has a way to tell if any given submission is a copycat of anything.

amelius 5y ago

> I'm not ideologically opposed to the idea of a walled-garden phone (though my preference would be to have the ability to sideload). The App-Store is, in this context, merely a Content Filter. So why not allow multiple content filters?

sleepybrett 5y ago
Because it creates customer confusion and anger when they hit the genius bar with a phone that is bricked because the customer used a non-apple appstore to install software that resulted in a bricked phone. It further causes apple support increased support costs when they have to prove that it wasn't their fault. Perhaps if apple had approval on those third-party appstores and held them to a standard and charged pushed those support charges onto them..
- amelius 5y ago
  Apple should just provide proper sandboxing. If some alternative appstore manages to break the sandbox, then they have different problems. The problem is not that Apple can't make this happen. The problem is that they don't want it.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  Apple can just very publicly and visibly issue disclaimers that it is not responsible for the after effects of users installing non-App Store content. Just as it does not offer coverage for water damage to MacBooks. Then the boundaries are made clear, and user anger will be directed at whatever malicious third party instead of Apple itself.
  - FalconSensei 5y ago
    But how do you prevent the users from thinking the problem was the non-App Store content instead of an update? They ARE going to contact support anyway
    - Apocryphon 5y ago

jillesvangurp 5y ago

Apple deserves the inevitable government intervention that it seems to be begging for with its arbitrariness and blatant anti competitive behavior.

pmarreck 5y ago
> blatant anti competitive behavior apple acting self-interested (which it’s entirely justified in doing, IMHO; this is the same company that almost had a tragic death in the 90’s) just opens up more competition IMHO. it’s too bad that true open-source phones are still crap, that android gave too much power to the cell network providers and became bloatware vehicles, and that microsoft completely abandoned its phone efforts even though its OS on there had a promising GUI. Maybe what we’re seeing is more a symptom of that. Also blue texts, because Google can’t get its head out of its ass long enough to actually summon and stick with a real iMessage competitor
- ChrisLTD 5y ago
  What does their near death experience of the 1990s have to do with today? Is anyone in leadership from that era even working there now?
  - pmarreck 5y ago
    Tim Cook's been at Apple since 1998. Apple's near-death was in 1997. Tim's overseen basically the entire rise from bottom to top. Craig Federighi joined in 1996, was there for the bottom of the barrel, left for a time but then returned. But yes, Jobs essentially died in the meantime of misinformation/baseless-beliefs, and Jony Ive has moved on (but he was there since 1992 up until recently). Phil Schiller's been at Apple since, wow, 1987, and Eddy Cue since 1989. So yeah, I'd say there's quite a few long-time Apple execs who have been there through the thick and the thin. More power to them. Know who else has stuck with them even longer than them? Me. Been an Apple guy since I was 12 in December 1984, when my otherwise-frugal fam got the Macintosh 128k. ;) In 1997 I was doing part-time work as a mainly-Mac computer consultant on the side (while serving in the USAF) and things were DIRE for any Apple believer. But anyway, bygone days. https://www.apple.com/leadership/ https://www.apple.com/leadership/

checker659 5y ago

> the developers that help make their platform attractive This is where you're wrong about Apple. To Apple, it's Apple that makes the platform attractive. Developers are a dime a dozen to them. Especially indie / small scale devs.